Pharmacist cites sin in birth control case

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A former pharmacist said yesterday he refused to fill a college student's prescription for birth control pills or transfer it to another pharmacy because he did not want to commit a sin.

   Neil Noesen, 30, testifying before a judge at a disciplinary hearing, could face a reprimand or loss of his pharmacist's license for refusing to help Amanda Phiede obtain her pills.

   "I could have trouble sleeping at night. I could be suffering the worst kind of pain: spiritual pain," Mr. Noesen told an administrative law judge.

   The state Department of Regulation and Licensing accuses Mr. Noesen of unprofessional conduct for not transferring Miss Phiede's prescription.

   "The additional risk of pregnancy should not have been imposed on her by someone else," said John Zwieg, a lawyer for the department.

   Mr. Noesen's attorney, Krystal Williams-Oby, said her client broke no laws. She described him as a devout Roman Catholic and said any punishment would violate his constitutional right to religious expression.

   According to the complaint, Mr. Noesen was an independent pharmacist filling in at a Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie in July 2002 when Miss Phiede, then a student at the University of Wisconsin at Stout, asked to renew her birth control prescription.

   Mr. Noesen, the only pharmacist on duty at the store at the time, asked if the prescription would be used for contraception, then refused to refill it when she said it would.

   "I just wanted to get my pills and go home," Miss Phiede said.

   Mr. Noesen also refused a Wal-Mart pharmacist's request to transfer the prescription, she said.

   Miss Phiede returned to Kmart the next day with police, she said, and the store manager called Ken Jordanby, the pharmacy director who was out of town. Mr. Jordanby filled her prescription when he returned the following day.

   In his testimony, Mr. Noesen talked about God's law and accused Mr. Zwieg of harassing him.

   The hearing is expected to conclude today. The judge will make a recommendation to the examining board on what punishment, if any, Mr. Noesen should receive.

Man, you sure are on an anti-religion tear today, aren't you?





I agree in this particular case, the pharmacist is an asshole.  If he cannot do his job, he should quit - not provide SELECTIVE service to his customers based on his personal beliefs, not the requirements of his profession.  

Tagged. This one should be pretty good.....

He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer.

He should lose his license.

Quoted: Man, you sure are on an anti-religion tear today, aren't you? I agree in this particular case, the pharmacist is an asshole.  If he cannot do his job, he should quite - not provide SELECTIVE service to his customers based on his personal beliefs, not the requirements of his profession.

not anti-religious; i am anti-insanity.

i am against any institution that tries to enslave the minds of their fellow man through violence, intimidation, superstion, ignorance, and popery.

they just happen to fuel my contempt lately.

if they stayed out of fucking children, attempting to spread STDs through ignorance and superstition, stopped trying to force others to conform to their backwards ideals, i would have no problem with them.

Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer.

He selectively refused to carry out his job.  If he couldn't do his job, he should have walked away.  The girl's DOCTOR is the one who decided what medicine to prescribe her - his job is to provide it, not make a judgemnt (medical OR moral) of whether she is entitled to get the medicine that a doctor proscribed.

How woudl you like a Jehova's witness at the hospital blood bank, deciding that you cannot have a trnasfusion of blood for your surgery because it is against HIS personal beliefs.

Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer.

bullshit! he also refused to transfer her prescription.

Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer.

You have got to be kidding me.  He wasn't running his own pharmacy, so it's not his call.  He is not a doctor either.  His job is to fill it, not instill his moral beliefs on this girl.

Quoted: Man, you sure are on an anti-religion tear today, aren't you?

It's an anti-reason tear.

I agree in this particular case, the pharmacist is an asshole.  If he cannot do his job, he should quit - not provide SELECTIVE service to his customers based on his personal beliefs, not the requirements of his profession.

OK, he's an asshole. So what? I think his declining to make a sale is between him and his employer (looks like he was a temp anyway). What if he concluded that Zoloft was too dangerous for adolescents to use, and declined to fill prescriptions for kids because he didn't want to be party to a risky act? Is he still an asshole? Suppose he won't stock morning after abortion pills? Asshole? How about when I decline or withdraw from a custody case because I've decided that it isn't in the kids' interest for my client to have custody? Am I an asshole?

As long as he doesn't decline service based on suspect classifications like race (thereby running afoul of federal law) the pharmacist is just like any other asshole running a business: he can sell what he wants to whom wants.

Quoted: Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer. He selectively refused to carry out his job.  If he couldn't do his job, he should have walked away.  The girl's DOCTOR is the one who decided what medicine to prescribe her - his job is to provide it, not make a judgemnt (medical OR moral) of whether she is entitled to get the medicine that a doctor proscribed. How woudl you like a Jehova's witness at the hospital blood bank, deciding that you cannot have a trnasfusion of blood for your surgery because it is against HIS personal beliefs.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer. bullshit! he also refused to transfer her prescription.

So what? He has no obligation to do anything for anybody. He can close the window and go home when he gets ready, without offending anything but his contract with his employer. He had no duty to fill the prescription, no duty to transfer the prescription, no duty to give her directions to the skating rink, no duty at all, except to his employer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He didn't push shit on anybody, and suggesting that he did is an indication of fuzzy thinking or outright loutishness. The guy declined to sell some merchandise. Period. He didn't force or require the woman to do anything, anymore than a gun shop owner who declines a sale because a potential customer doesn't seem quite right is forcing his beliefs on the disappointed buyer. bullshit! he also refused to transfer her prescription. So what? He has no obligation to do anything for anybody. He can close the window and go home when he gets ready, without offending anything but his contract with his employer. He had no duty to fill the prescription, no duty to transfer the prescription, no duty to give her directions to the skating rink, no duty at all, except to his employer.

 Wow, I'm speechless. Talk about a narrowminded view.

Quoted: OK, he's an asshole. So what? I think his declining to make a sale is between him and his employer (looks like he was a temp anyway). What if he concluded that Zoloft was too dangerous for adolescents to use, and declined to fill prescriptions for kids because he didn't want to be party to a risky act? Is he still an asshole? Suppose he won't stock morning after abortion pills? Asshole? How about when I decline or withdraw from a custody case because I've decided that it isn't in the kids' interest for my client to have custody? Am I an asshole?

The point is that he is NOT QUALIFIED to make those decisions (like the Zoloft for kids).  He does not have the authority to prescribe medicine.  If he wants to make those decisions, he can go to medical school like the doctor did that wrote the script in the first place.  (I fucking HATE people who want the power to make decisions that they are not qualified or empowered to make - just like those damn soldiers in Iraq who somehow got the deluded notion that they get to pick and choose which orders to carry out ).  

EVEN if we acecpt the argument that he personally is unwilling to do so, the fact the he REFUSED to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy is what makes him a total ASSHOLE - because he is saying that his personal moral judgment should trump the judgment of the doctor, and the choices of the patient.

As long as he doesn't decline service based on suspect classifications like race (thereby running afoul of federal law) the pharmacist is just like any other asshole running a business: he can sell what he wants to whom wants.

If it was HIS business, I completely agree.  But it wasn't, and that is the second reason that he's an asshole.

Quoted: He selectively refused to carry out his job.  If he couldn't do his job, he should have walked away.  The girl's DOCTOR is the one who decided what medicine to prescribe her - his job is to provide it, not make a judgemnt (medical OR moral) of whether she is entitled to get the medicine that a doctor proscribed.

His job is whatever he and his employer decide it is, and no customer has a dog in that hunt, unless the wrong drugs are dispensed. What's my remedy when a clerk yacks on the phone instead of ringing up purchases for long enough that I leave? Nothing, because I don't have a say in what his job is or how he does it. Suppose KMart refused to stock contraceptives? At whom do you bitch then? Are they violating somebody's made-up rights by determining their own stocking policies?

How woudl you like a Jehova's witness at the hospital blood bank, deciding that you cannot have a trnasfusion of blood for your surgery because it is against HIS personal beliefs.

I'm guessing that when the blood didn't show up, the doctor in charge would send somebody else to get it - which seems to be what happened with the birth control pills. In any event, I don't have a right to compel the JW to do anything.

Quoted: Quoted: Man, you sure are on an anti-religion tear today, aren't you? It's an anti-reason tear. I agree in this particular case, the pharmacist is an asshole.  If he cannot do his job, he should quit - not provide SELECTIVE service to his customers based on his personal beliefs, not the requirements of his profession.   OK, he's an asshole. So what? I think his declining to make a sale is between him and his employer (looks like he was a temp anyway). What if he concluded that Zoloft was too dangerous for adolescents to use, and declined to fill prescriptions for kids because he didn't want to be party to a risky act? Is he still an asshole? Suppose he won't stock morning after abortion pills? Asshole? How about when I decline or withdraw from a custody case because I've decided that it isn't in the kids' interest for my client to have custody? Am I an asshole? As long as he doesn't decline service based on suspect classifications like race (thereby running afoul of federal law) the pharmacist is just like any other asshole running a business: he can sell what he wants to whom wants.

you sound like you're one of the aint islam kill em all types, so tell me you wouldn't be pissed off if some MUSLIM pharmacist refused to transfer a perscription of  birth control for whatever his religious belief on it was.

Quoted:  Wow, I'm speechless. Talk about a narrowminded view.

As contrasted with the broad-minded view that says that standing behind a counter makes a man a slave to whoever stands in front of it?

She's a sinner.  He should have stoned her to death right there in the pharmacy.

Quoted: EVEN if we acecpt the argument that he personally is unwilling to do so, the fact the he REFUSED to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy is what makes him a total ASSHOLE - because he is saying that his personal moral judgment should trump the judgment of the doctor, and the choices of the patient.

No, all he is saying is that he will not be party in any way to an act of contraception. You can't "impose" on others through inaction. He didn't run from store to store ahead of her snatching birth control pills off the shelves; he didn't hold her at gunpoint till she agreed never to use birth control; he simply refused to cooperate with her. That's all. He could have refused the sale because she was wearing pink toenail polish, or because he didn't feel like selling anything but tylenol that day. Suppose he wouldn't give her the pills because she couldn't pay for them. What right is he trampling then? What "value" has he imposed on her? None, because the customer has no right to his cooperation.

Even with a doctor's note, you have nothing that can be called a right to require other people to cooperate with you.

If it was HIS business, I completely agree.  But it wasn't, and that is the second reason that he's an asshole.

So he's off KMart's list of fill-in pill rollers. That's because KMart is the injured party. He violated a duty to his employer to sell their stuff to anybody qualified to buy it. He violated no duty to the customer.

Quoted: Quoted:  Wow, I'm speechless. Talk about a narrowminded view. As contrasted with the broad-minded view that says that standing behind a counter makes a man a slave to whoever stands in front of it?

Absolutely, if that is your job. He was working for K-mart. I seriously doubt that K-mart has a policy that allows a pharmacist to make a judgement call based on his own beliefs and not fill a prescription.  If the moron owned his own business, then yes, that would be fine.  But he didn't, so it is not a valid argument in reguards to this situation.

He chose his line of work and should stand by the standards and practices set forth for it.

Quoted: Well, if they are doing gods work than what's wrong with it? Its not their business feeding Satan another victim by filling her Rx. [end sarcasm roll] Dumbass's probably don't know sometimes Birth Control pills are used for other medical treatment OTHER Than sexual relations.

If you read the article, you'll see that he asked, and she said they were for contraception. Dumbass apparently did know.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason."

Quoted: Only in California ... wait this happened in Wisconsin. Never mind. No religion was "pushed", nobody got their feelings "hurt", the girl just needed to walk across the street to murder her un-born. I assume the store was a private company that has the right to conduct business as they see fit - or would you mandate that the government forces them to sell a certain line of products?

No, it was at a Kmart pharmacy.

It appears that it was called in to the Kmart and he refused to transfer it as well.

According to the complaint, Mr. Noesen was an independent pharmacist filling in at a Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie in July 2002 when Miss Phiede, then a student at the University of Wisconsin at Stout, asked to renew her birth control prescription.

He's an independant pharmacist. He should be able to sell or nor sell as he damn well pleases. No law forces him to sell drugs to anybody. If he's against birth control, he's under no obligation to sell the pills. If the girls wants the pills go to another pharmacy.

Now, if she doesn't use the pills and gets pregnant, would the first doctor she visits be obligated to perform an abortion? Or could he refuse and risk being taken to  court?

Mr. Noesen also refused a Wal-Mart pharmacist's request to transfer the prescription,

Quoted: not anti-religious; i am anti-insanity.

Yeah, right.

i am against any institution that tries to enslave the minds of their fellow man through violence, intimidation, superstion, ignorance, and popery.

Me too.  Of course, true Christianity doesn't do any of those things.

they just happen to fuel my contempt lately.

Oh.

if they stayed out of fxxxing children,

No true Christians that I know of support doing that.

attempting to spread STDs through ignorance and superstition,

No true Christians that I know of support that either. In fact, following the true teachings of Jesus will prevent STDs 100%.

stopped trying to force others to conform to their backwards ideals, i would have no problem with them.

Well, you are batting 1000.  Christianity doesn't "force" anyone to believe anything.  Christianity is unique in this regard.  No one can be forced to become a true Chrisstian.  Nowhere does the Bible teach to even try to "force" anyone to believe.

We are taught to tell others about the Good News, but it is up to them to take it or leave it.

Unlike Islam, Christianity cannot be forced upon anyone.

Try to get your facts straight before launching into a rant.  Thanks.

Oh, and to answer your original question, the parmacist was wrong not to fill the prescription or transfer it to another location.  If his faith doesn't let him fill prescriptions, he needs to get another line of work.

Unlike Islam, Christianity cannot be forced upon anyone

Now this is a guess, just a guess, but did you get an 'F' in like everyone of your history clases????

or and I'm thinking of getting a job at a bank then once they give it to me i'll announce that my religion prohibits me from touching money. So i expect they'll let me sit in a corner listen to the radio and GET PAID!!! Hey, at least I won't be collecting welfare, right?

He was filling in. He shouldn't lose his license because his personal policy was in conflict with the execution of his job. He should just not be hired by Kmart again for a temporary position. Pack up your anti-religious bag and go home.

It has nothing to do with being anti-religious. Is it his job to judge her and decide if she deserved the pills for that reason(birth control). What I find amusing about the situation is that he asked her if they were for birth control. She said yes so he wouldn't give them to her. What if she would have said they were for regulating her period or whatever else they use them for. Would he have given them to her then.  Should it matter the reason given that the pill will act as birth control even though it may have been prescribed to control something else. Prescribed the pill for birth control, "No, I wont fill it for you" Prescribe it for another medical condition and it will act as birth control anyway "No problem, I'll fill it for you"

Quoted: His job is whatever he and his employer decide it is, and no customer has a dog in that hunt, unless the wrong drugs are dispensed. What's my remedy when a clerk yacks on the phone instead of ringing up purchases for long enough that I leave? Nothing, because I don't have a say in what his job is or how he does it. Suppose KMart refused to stock contraceptives? At whom do you bitch then? Are they violating somebody's made-up rights by determining their own stocking policies?

+1.

Quoted: Unlike Islam, Christianity cannot be forced upon anyone Now this is a guess, just a guess, but did you get an 'F' in like everyone of your history clases????

Nope.  I made A's.  But if you disagree with that statement, it shows that you do not have even a minimal understand of Christian doctrine.

And don't try to trot out that old BS about the Crusades or the Inquisition.

The Bible, nowhere, NOWHERE, tells us to go into foreign lands and, with the sword, force people to profess Christianity.  And if those guys in the Crusades did so, they were not following the teachiings of Jesus.

Same thing for the Inquisition.  The Bible does not teach anyone to torture anyone to "force" them to profess Christianity.  The Inquisitors were not following the teachings of Jesus, and therefore, were not practicing Christianity.

or and I'm thinking of getting a job at a bank then once they give it to me i'll announce that my religion prohibits me from touching money. So i expect they'll let me sit in a corner listen to the radio and GET PAID!!! Hey, at least I won't be collecting welfare, right?

That is, without question, one of the most poorly developed arguments I've ever seen on this board.  I can't even imagine what you are trying to argue.

Therefore, I am giving you this picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.  Your welcome.

Quoted: He should lose his license.

He will

fire the fucker.

First off, the guy wasn't a temp, he was an in-store pharmacist.  Some idiot saw the phrase "independent pharmacist" and jumped to the conclusion that he was a temp;  there is no indication of that ANYWHERE in the article.

When you look at a book rack in a K-Mart, it's not the store's book rack and the store doesn't own the books.  Some company rents the space from the store and stocks it.  The same is true of pharmacies;  the store rents the space out to a pharmacist who sets up his office there.

It's just like at Pearle Vision or any other similar store.  They have an "independent optometrist" stuffed in a corner.  Pearle Vision just has opticians and a bunch of frames;  the "independent optometrist" is a completely separate business that is just renting space.

There are probably regulatory and licensing reasons that force this, like the situation with dentists and dental hygienists -- in WA, hygienists can't practice independently, and must work in a dentist's office.  Other states allow independent practices subject to other rules.  I wouldn't  be surprised if the pharmacists' lobby has prohibited chains from "owning" the pharmacy.

Quoted: Only in California ... wait this happened in Wisconsin. Never mind. No religion was "pushed", nobody got their feelings "hurt", the girl just needed to walk across the street to murder her un-born. I assume the store was a private company that has the right to conduct business as they see fit - or would you mandate that the government forces them to sell a certain line of products?

Yo, dumbass, this wasn't RU-486, this was "The Pill".  Contraception, not abortion.

And she couldn't just "walk across the street";  the pharmacy had her prescription, and the pharmacist refused to transfer it to the Wal-Mart so that she could go there to get it filled.

Quoted: Quoted: stopped trying to force others to conform to their backwards ideals, i would have no problem with them. Well, you are batting 1000.  Christianity doesn't "force" anyone to believe anything.  Christianity is unique in this regard.  No one can be forced to become a true Chrisstian.  Nowhere does the Bible teach to even try to "force" anyone to believe. We are taught to tell others about the Good News, but it is up to them to take it or leave it. Unlike Islam, Christianity cannot be forced upon anyone.

Well, gee, it sure sounds like he was trying to force Catholicism on *her*.

Quoted: OK, he's an asshole. So what? I think his declining to make a sale is between him and his employer (looks like he was a temp anyway). What if he concluded that Zoloft was too dangerous for adolescents to use, and declined to fill prescriptions for kids because he didn't want to be party to a risky act? Is he still an asshole?

Excuse me, asshole, but if some pinheaded pharmacist refused to fill, say, my child's prescription for Zoloft because the pinhead felt it was "dangerous", I'd be at the pharmacy with my handgun pointed at his head telling him to fork it over NOW or be dead.

Terminating someone's SSRI antidepressants, like Zoloft, suddenly without tapering them off is a damn good way to kill that person.  The brain adapts to the reduced serotonin uptake by reducing serotonin and dopamine production;  a sudden cutoff of the SSRI leaves that person in the deepest blackest pit imaginable.  Paxil's bad rap came from exactly that -- the drug company didn't realize how much the brain came to depend on it, and so patients were killing  themselves when their doctors pulled them off it to switch them to something else.

SSRIs are something you TAPER THE PATIENT OFF OF.


A pharmacist's job is not to determine whether a patient is allowed to take a given medication or not;  at most, for prepackaged medications, it is to determine whether a patient is taking any other medication that might conflict with the stuff being delivered, to warn the patient of any common OTC medications that might conflict with it, and to warn the patient of any side effects or things to avoid (e.g., eating grapefruit speeds uptake of some drugs;  some drugs need to be taken on an empty stomach;  etc.).   That is ALL.  The physician, in consultation with the patient, decides whether a drug is necessary or desirable for the patient.

Quoted: Quoted: or and I'm thinking of getting a job at a bank then once they give it to me i'll announce that my religion prohibits me from touching money. So i expect they'll let me sit in a corner listen to the radio and GET PAID!!! Hey, at least I won't be collecting welfare, right? That is, without question, one of the most poorly developed arguments I've ever seen on this board.  I can't even imagine what you are trying to argue. Therefore, I am giving you this picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.  Your welcome. photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=22270

I think he's referencing Jesus beating the shit out of the money-changers.  You do know that for the longest time, Christians weren't allowed to collect interest on loans, correct?  That was usury.  This was one reason Christian countries "tolerated" Jews -- Jews, like Shylock, were allowed to be moneylenders.

So, if some Catholic asshole is allowed to refuse to provide any form of birth control to someone who doesn't buy into his particular bit of insanity, then it only makes sense that from here on out, any "true Christian" is not allowed to work at a bank, mortgage company, credit card company, credit union, or other form of loan company -- it can't be called discrimination, since the world is merely trying to protect their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: or and I'm thinking of getting a job at a bank then once they give it to me i'll announce that my religion prohibits me from touching money. So i expect they'll let me sit in a corner listen to the radio and GET PAID!!! Hey, at least I won't be collecting welfare, right? That is, without question, one of the most poorly developed arguments I've ever seen on this board.  I can't even imagine what you are trying to argue. Therefore, I am giving you this picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.  Your welcome. photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=22270 I think he's referencing Jesus beating the shit out of the money-changers.  You do know that for the longest time, Christians weren't allowed to collect interest on loans, correct?  That was usury.  This was one reason Christian countries "tolerated" Jews -- Jews, like Shylock, were allowed to be moneylenders. So, if some Catholic asshole is allowed to refuse to provide any form of birth control to someone who doesn't buy into his particular bit of insanity, then it only makes sense that from here on out, any "true Christian" is not allowed to work at a bank, mortgage company, credit card company, credit union, or other form of loan company -- it can't be called discrimination, since the world is merely trying to protect their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs.

You don't know your facts much better than poink.

"Usury" was defined as excessive interest, and wasn't allowed between Jews.  

The New Testament does not prohibit Christians from working "a bank, mortgage company, credit card company, credit union, or other form of loan company ", as you note.

But if a Christian doesn't feel like he should work at a job because of his personal beliefs, then he should find another job.

You will note that I said:

Oh, and to answer your original question, the parmacist was wrong not to fill the prescription or transfer it to another location. If his faith doesn't let him fill prescriptions, he needs to get another line of work.

I guess foaming at the mouth in a rant prevents some people from reading well.

just go somewhere else, they have to return the script to you. That is the law

Quoted: First off, the guy wasn't a temp, he was an in-store pharmacist.  Some idiot saw the phrase "independent pharmacist" and jumped to the conclusion that he was a temp;  there is no indication of that ANYWHERE in the article.

From the original article

Mr. Noesen was an independent pharmacist filling in at a Kmart pharmacy. . . .

You've done a fine job identifying the idiot in this thread.

Yo, dumbass, this wasn't RU-486, this was "The Pill".  Contraception, not abortion. And she couldn't just "walk across the street";  the pharmacy had her prescription, and the pharmacist refused to transfer it to the Wal-Mart so that she could go there to get it filled.

I believe "the pill" works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, causing the zygote to be expelled. If so, it's an abortion, although a very early one. In any event, many people believe that preventing conception is morally identical to an abortion.

She couldn't fill her prescription somewhere else at that moment, but she could easily have had the prescription called from her doctor's office to another pharmacy that day or on the next business day.

You are ignorant. Ignorant people should at least be polite. It won't make you smart, but it will keep you down toward the "dumb" end and away from the "hole" end on the Ass Meter. When you start name-calling, you mark yourself as a lowlife.

Well, gee, it sure sounds like he was trying to force Catholicism on *her*.

As noted earlier, you are flaunting your ignorance. Did he forcibly baptise her? Did he force to state her assent to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility? Cram Communion down her throat?

The simple fact is, he did nothing to her, for her, or about her. He declined to do what she wanted, and that is all.

Excuse me, asshole, but if some pinheaded pharmacist refused to fill, say, my child's prescription for Zoloft because the pinhead felt it was "dangerous", I'd be at the pharmacy with my handgun pointed at his head telling him to fork it over NOW or be dead.

I am not surprised that someone who is ignorant, foul-mouthed, and incapable of distinguishing between force and inaction would wait to refill his child's prescription until after he had run out of medication. Nor am I surprised that you try to fill the vast vacancy inside your skull with absurd fantasies of violent pseudoheroism.

A pharmacist's job is not to determine whether a patient is allowed to take a given medication or not;  at most, for prepackaged medications, it is to determine whether a patient is taking any other medication that might conflict with the stuff being delivered, to warn the patient of any common OTC medications that might conflict with it, and to warn the patient of any side effects or things to avoid (e.g., eating grapefruit speeds uptake of some drugs;  some drugs need to be taken on an empty stomach;  etc.).   That is ALL.  The physician, in consultation with the patient, decides whether a drug is necessary or desirable for the patient.

You don't get to decide what a pharmacist's job is. The fact that a doctor has written a prescription and a patient presents it at the counter does not oblige the pharmacist to do anything.

Quoted: Quoted: I think he's referencing Jesus beating the shit out of the money-changers.  You do know that for the longest time, Christians weren't allowed to collect interest on loans, correct?  That was usury.  This was one reason Christian countries "tolerated" Jews -- Jews, like Shylock, were allowed to be moneylenders. So, if some Catholic asshole is allowed to refuse to provide any form of birth control to someone who doesn't buy into his particular bit of insanity, then it only makes sense that from here on out, any "true Christian" is not allowed to work at a bank, mortgage company, credit card company, credit union, or other form of loan company -- it can't be called discrimination, since the world is merely trying to protect their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. You don't know your facts much better than poink. "Usury" was defined as excessive interest, and wasn't allowed between Jews.   The New Testament does not prohibit Christians from working "a bank, mortgage company, credit card company, credit union, or other form of loan company ", as you note. But if a Christian doesn't feel like he should work at a job because of his personal beliefs, then he should find another job. You will note that I said: Oh, and to answer your original question, the parmacist was wrong not to fill the prescription or transfer it to another location. If his faith doesn't let him fill prescriptions, he needs to get another line of work. I guess foaming at the mouth in a rant prevents some people from reading well.

No, I noticed your comment just fine.  Unfortunately, many of your coreligionists do not seem to share your common sense.  Your post, in combination with the one you were quoting, provided an anchor point for my own modest proposal;  quite honestly, you seem like the sanest person in the thread.

However, while your version of history might say usury is only "excessive" interest, other people's versions I have heard and read in the past claimed "any and all" interest was immoral and prohibited.  To name but one, Leo Frankowski's series of "the cross-time knight" (or whatever it was called);  there were several more, but that one comes to mind.  You are the first, and so far only, person I have seen claim that some level of interest was acceptable to the various Christian churches -- in particular, to Catholics, since the nutcase pharmacist was a Catholic.

Its fuckers like this guy that give Catholics like me a bad rep.

Either you prepare yourself to do ANYTHING that is a reasonable part of your job, despite your religion... OR you DON'T take the job. If you decide to find a religious objection and not do your job, your boss can, and should, fire your ass...

Quoted: Quoted: First off, the guy wasn't a temp, he was an in-store pharmacist.  Some idiot saw the phrase "independent pharmacist" and jumped to the conclusion that he was a temp;  there is no indication of that ANYWHERE in the article. From the original article Mr. Noesen was an independent pharmacist filling in at a Kmart pharmacy. . . . You've done a fine job identifying the idiot in this thread.

Thank you, you're right, you really are one.  BTW, thanks for catching that minor mistake on my part;  oops, my bad.

Yo, dumbass, this wasn't RU-486, this was "The Pill".  Contraception, not abortion. And she couldn't just "walk across the street";  the pharmacy had her prescription, and the pharmacist refused to transfer it to the Wal-Mart so that she could go there to get it filled. I believe "the pill" works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, causing the zygote to be expelled. If so, it's an abortion, although a very early one. In any event, many people believe that preventing conception is morally identical to an abortion.

So, as a practicing Catholic, does that mean he won't point out where the condoms are, either?  "Excuse me, young man, are you going to use those to protect your AR-15 from getting sand down the muzzle while in Iraq, or are you going to try to prevent getting your girlfriend pregnant?  We can't have any of that around here!"

She couldn't fill her prescription somewhere else at that moment, but she could easily have had the prescription called from her doctor's office to another pharmacy that day or on the next business day.

Yeah, what can I say, you're right, a five-day waiting period to buy a firearm is no big deal.

And it's perfectly all right for society to force gun owners to wait five days.  Or to ban ammunition sales during riots, as happened in L.A. -- after all, it's merely delaying the purchase, not denying it outright.  And if gun owners have to drive to some other county to buy ammo in the middle of the riots, no problem, it's only a little gasoline and inconvenience.

You are ignorant. Ignorant people should at least be polite. It won't make you smart, but it will keep you down toward the "dumb" end and away from the "hole" end on the Ass Meter. When you start name-calling, you mark yourself as a lowlife.

You are an asshole.  You cloak your desire to control others' lives in the mask of "rights" to refuse service.  The man chose a profession where he would be called upon regularly to deliver products that he had a fundamental disagreement with.  Did he refuse to do this consistently, or was this a sudden change on his part?  Did he make his employer aware that he would be interfering with their normal business practices of providing the medication, or did he spring it on them when this situation came up?

Furthermore, he refused to transfer her prescription.  "Nope, sorry dear, your doctor called it in to us.  His mistake -- you're fucked, or, well, not fucked I guess.  Better abstain until your cycle passes again since you'll miss a day.  I guess you'll have to go back to the doctor, have him call it in to someplace else, and hope I'm not working there tomorrow."

And if the doc decides to charge her for the additional visit, well, that's just like paying for the background check to get a gun, as IIRC some states require.

Well, gee, it sure sounds like he was trying to force Catholicism on *her*. As noted earlier, you are flaunting your ignorance. Did he forcibly baptise her? Did he force to state her assent to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility? Cram Communion down her throat? The simple fact is, he did nothing to her, for her, or about her. He declined to do what she wanted, and that is all.

On the contrary, he refused to sell her something that she had a legal and moral right to buy.  He forced his religious views on her.

Excuse me, asshole, but if some pinheaded pharmacist refused to fill, say, my child's prescription for Zoloft because the pinhead felt it was "dangerous", I'd be at the pharmacy with my handgun pointed at his head telling him to fork it over NOW or be dead. I am not surprised that someone who is ignorant, foul-mouthed, and incapable of distinguishing between force and inaction would wait to refill his child's prescription until after he had run out of medication. Nor am I surprised that you try to fill the vast vacancy inside your skull with absurd fantasies of violent pseudoheroism.

Oh, fuck off, asswipe.  It's been a bad few weeks, some total assholes slammed two planes into the WTC, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth got crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.  We've been stranded in Seattle for the past two weeks trying to find some way to get home.  The boy's prescription records are with a physician back home, we've had trouble getting an appointment with a local doctor, and the pharmacies won't hand it out over the counter.  Everyone's in shock, and YOU AREN'T HELPING.

We finally get to one doctor who will issue a new prescription, and now some total fuckwad of a "pharmacist" decides to play God and refuses to supply the medication that my kid needs.

Happy?  Incidentally, I had relatives stranded in Seattle for a week and a half as a result of the attacks;  air traffic wasn't moving, as you may recall, and they were too elderly to take a transcontinental bus ride.  I don't know what they would have done if they'd run out of meds.

A pharmacist's job is not to determine whether a patient is allowed to take a given medication or not;  at most, for prepackaged medications, it is to determine whether a patient is taking any other medication that might conflict with the stuff being delivered, to warn the patient of any common OTC medications that might conflict with it, and to warn the patient of any side effects or things to avoid (e.g., eating grapefruit speeds uptake of some drugs;  some drugs need to be taken on an empty stomach;  etc.).   That is ALL.  The physician, in consultation with the patient, decides whether a drug is necessary or desirable for the patient. You don't get to decide what a pharmacist's job is. The fact that a doctor has written a prescription and a patient presents it at the counter does not oblige the pharmacist to do anything.

A pharmacist's job, and responsibility, is to deliver the fucking medicine in a safe manner.  Nothing more.  Not to force his views on someone by telling her that the medicine conflicts with "God's will" as he interprets it.

Quoted: You are an asshole.  You cloak your desire to control others' lives in the mask of "rights" to refuse service.

Let's see. You can't distinguish between action and inaction. You can't distinguish between government and individuals. You can't carry on an argument over issues without resorting to name-calling. That's the Twit Hat Trick. Congratulations.

Yes it happened several months ago.  the hearing as a result was recently.  In otherwords dragging up old news for trolling and religion bashing purposes.

Quoted: I don't think anyone will argue the guy should be fired from Kmart since he took a job he was not prepared to do. The issue is him losing his license which IMHO is excessive since he can start his own "Assholes Catholic Pharmacy" and he can stock what he wants to or not. The state has the right to license someone to sell something but telling them what they must sell is a tad way too much state control.  If I screamed bloody hell everytime a pharmacy doesn't carry the drugs I need, it would eat up one hell of alot of my time.  INstead, I call around and find the pharmacy that has what I need.  There is no right to make someone sell something they don't want to nor should there be.  As a business person, I reserve the right to do business with whomever I want. Tj BTW, IMHO Catholics don't need to be defended on this, in this thread for this was the actions of one guy not the church.

Sorry, Tom, but I disagree.  He refused to transfer her prescription when she asked him to do so.  As such, he was violating her right to get her prescription filled ANYWHERE ELSE.

Her doctor called her prescription in to that pharmacy, which stocked the drug, and which had presumably provided it in the past.

This pharmacist refused to supply it, and refused to allow her to get it somewhere else.

He deserves everything that can possibly be brought down upon him for that.

And I agree with you that he was acting on his own, not on behalf of his church.  In point of fact, I wonder what the Catholic Church would say about his behavior in refusing to give her her prescription back.

Quoted: Well, gee, it sure sounds like he was trying to force Catholicism on *her*.

No, he was refusing to let her force her Secular Humanism on him by participating in any way in the transaction.